GUESTBOOK

print version »

If you have any comments about the site or about any material, we would be delighted to hear from you.

comments


	23.09.07 \| UkrToday I would like to suggets you start a discussion topic on electoral reform. I poersonal would liek to advocate Ukraine adopting a system of "Preferential proportional representation voting" as opposed to the nataional part list system. The creatuion of 39 local electorates each elctorate returning nine members elected on a 10% quota to Parliament (Total 351 members of Parliament). Accountability whilst retaining proportional representation. http://ukrainetoday.blogspot.com/search/label/Electoral%20Reform

	23.09.07 \| UkrToday Friday, September 21, 2007 Ukraine’s Indecisive, Divisive, Illegal and Unconstitutional Election A recipe for disaster In one weeks time Ukraine will go to the polls. Public opinion polls are showing that Ukraine remains bitterly divided as it was back in 2004. Next weeks election will only further divide Ukraine and add to the loss of confidence in the political process The results of the election are unknown but what is known is that only the victor will support the outcome and who ever is the loser will reject it. If Yulia Tymoshenko loses the election she will once again claim that the results of the ballot was fraudulent. If she wins her opposition will claim likewise. Earlier in the week the Government had cause to seriously question the conduct of the election, the role played by Ukraine’s President and the ongoing question and doubt of the legality of the president’s actions. The ngovernment has made allegations levelled at the president’s secretariat of not respecting the oath of office and becoming embroiled in the political campaign. Imagine a situation where the Queen of England, or any other head of state, dismisses the parliament and then actively advocates support for thier chosen party. In reality the situation is likely to get worst before it gets better. It is more then likely that Ukraine’s next government will not be formed following the election irrespective of who wins next weeks ballot. What ever the final results of the election are, the outcome, will have a negative impact and Ukraine may very well face a even worst period of dissent and disputation then it has experienced in past elections. Had the situation in Ukraine occurred in a western democracy the actions of the head of state would have been ruled unconstitutional in that the Constitution does not provide the authority for the president to dismiss the parliament under the current circumstances. The main cause of dissension and loss of confidence is to be found in the basis of the election and the president’s unconstitutional decrees dismissing Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament. Unlike in other circumstances where there are grounds for early elections there is no political division or loss of confidence that has prevented the formation and functioning of government. The government in Ukraine maintains the support of a majority of the elected representatives as was demonstrated by the fact that 260 out of 450 members parliament attended the recent parliamentary session. The only cause of disputation is an ongoing power struggle between the office of the president and the parliament. The situation has been made worst by the president’s illegal interference in the operation of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court which has prevented the Court from ruling on the legality of the president’s actions. The president’s decrees and actions are in direct breach of Article 5 of Ukraine’s Constitution in that th

	23.09.07 \| UkrToday Tuesday, September 04, 2007 Ukraine’s Parliament convenes Autumn Session amidst Constitutional Crisis Ukraine’s Parliament today (September 4) convened its Autumn session according to the requirements in Ukraine’s constitution (Article 83). The session was attended by 269 members of parliament. The Autumn Session of Parliament was held under controversy in the midst of a constitutional crisis and power struggle between the President and Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament An agreement was struck in late May between the The President, the Prime Minster and the Speaker of the Parliament that early parliamentary election could be held subject to the determination of the president complying with Ukraine’s’ Constitution. Under Ukraine’s Constitution (Article 90)The President of Ukraine may terminate the authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine prior to the expiration of term, if: .., (s3) the Parliament fails, within thirty days of a single regular session, to commence its plenary meetings. In July members of the opposition resigned their parliamentary positions and canceled their respective party lists reducing the member of elected representatives in the parliament to below two-thirds of the total 450 parliamentary seats. According to Ukraine’s constitution (Article 82) The Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine is competent on the condition that no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition has been elected. Following the resignation of opposition members it is argued that the parliament is no longer competent and as such the holding of the plenary session on September 4 could not be convened. The president’s earlier decrees seeking to dismiss the parliament has been subject to an appeal in Ukraine’s Constitutional Court including the current decree scheduling election for September 30 The basis of the appeals to the constitutional court is that the president has usurped power in that his decrees do not conform to the requirements of Article 90 of the constitution. The session of parliament held to day holds two points of interest in terms of provisions of constitutional law which is open to augment and interpretation which can only be determined by the Ukraine’s Constitution Court which has been muted since the president interference in the operation and composition of the court. First Question: Can the Parliament convene its parliamentary session given that it does not maintain the requisite number of elected representatives? The parliament could be skating on thin ice and the court could very well rule the session invalid accordingly. Second Question: Does the president have the authority to dismiss the Parliament. If the September 4 session is considered invalid then the president under Article 90 can within 30 days from today (October 5) terminate the authority of the parliament but not before. Prior to today the president had no grounds or authority in which he can di

	23.09.07 \| UkrToday Second Question: Does the president have the authority to dismiss the Parliament. If the September 4 session is considered invalid then the president under Article 90 can within 30 days from today (October 5) terminate the authority of the parliament but not before. Prior to today the president had no grounds or authority in which he can dismiss the parliament. The government maintains the support and confidence of a majority of elected parliamentary representatives, there is no division and there is no vote of no-confidence which would normal be a pre-condition for a parliaments dismissal. For the sake of 30 days the president has placed the legality of the September 30 election and undermined confidence in Ukraine’s constitutional rule of law having himself breached the provisions of the constitution.

	23.09.07 \| UkrToday Ukraine’s Constitutional Court The current division questions of legality hinges on the the ability and willingness of Ukraine Constitutional Court to fulfill its duty which following the president’s intervene in the operation of the court has failed to rule on the appeals before it. Back in April this year the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution in which it stated " The Assembly deplores the fact that the judicial system of Ukraine has been systematically misused by other branches of power and that top officials do not execute the courts’ decisions, which is a sign of erosion of this crucial democratic institution. An independent and impartial judiciary is a precondition for the existence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Hence the urgent necessity to carry out comprehensive judicial reform, including through amendments to the constitution. and has not allocated the required funding for these elections”. The Assembly reiterates that the authority of the sole body responsible for constitutional justice – the Constitutional Court of Ukraine – should be guaranteed and respected. Any form of pressure on the judges is intolerable and should be investigated and criminally prosecuted. On the other hand, it is regrettable that in the eight months of its new full composition, the Constitutional Court has failed to produce judgments, thus failing to fulfil its constitutional role and to contribute to resolving the crisis in its earlier stages, which undermines the credibility of the court. There is an urgent need for all pending judgments, and in particular the judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Presidential Decree of 2 April 2007, to be delivered. If delivered, the latter should be accepted as binding by all sides." The associated explanatory report under the sub-heading of Pressure on the courts expressed concern that "Several local courts have made decisions to suspend the Presidential Decree only to then withdraw them, allegedly under pressure from the presidential secretariat." (item 67) ” In emphasis the report (item 68) stated "This is a worrying tendency of legal nihilism that should not be tolerated. It is as clear as day that in a state governed by the rule of law judicial mistakes should be corrected through appeal procedures and not through threats or disciplinary sanctions"

	20.08.08 \| ikalangita thanks for this web site, me also i support human rights fight and built my own website to promote this cause http://www.kabonfootprint-gov.com

	20.02.09 \| ombudsman There is no such word as Ombudsperson. We do not call your organization Kharkiv Humperson rights group. I think you have some political correctness over zealous contributors or translators who write reports. they do not serve you well. The origin of the word is found in Old Swedish umbuðsmann (accusative) and the word umbuds man, meaning representative. The first preserved use is in Swedish. In the Danish Law of Jutland from 1241 the term is umbozman and means a royal civil servant in a hundred (country subdivision). From 1552, it is also used in the other Scandinavian languages such as the Icelandic "umboðsmaður", the Norwegian "ombudsmann" and the Danish "ombudsmand". The modern use of the term began in Sweden, with the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman instituted in 1809, to safeguard the rights of citizens by establishing a supervisory agency independent of the executive branch.

	13.09.09 \| UkrToday Back in June the Venice Commission reviewed a draft legislation on Parliamentary Elections proposed and submitted by the Ukrainian Parliament Committee on State Building and Local Self-Governance. The system proposed in the draft law provides for 450 parliamentarians to be elected under a form of proportional representation that uses territorial election districts, including a foreign territorial election district where ballots are cast by out of country voters. Under the proposed system, most members of parliament will be elected from national lists, with the mathematical possibility for individual political party candidates to be elected within an in-country territorial election district from a territorial list. The proposed model, as commented in the Venice Commission’s report, is very convoluted, complex and over engineered. It seeks to reinstate a “hybrid representative model” which is extraordinary and unnecessarily complex in its implementation. Under the proposals put forward Ukraine’s parliament would be made up of a representatives elected from a single party list but with the allocation of a proportion of the list being determined by local regional elections (the exact boundaries and composition not yet decided) . The system is so complex I do not think it is worth trying to unravel and explain in detail. It is a good example as how Ukrainian politicians try to manipulate the system to deliver a solution that is not a solution. Hybrid systems do not work. They create a distortion and inequality of the representative model which in turn distorts the balance of representation by creating super-sets and sub-sets of mandates. Those elected on a National List will hold a separate and significantly different mandate then those elected by the regional local list. This system did not work in the old parliament prior to the reforms of 2004. The proposed system, as complicated as it is, will also fail. The temptation to try and manipulate and over engineer Ukraine’s parliamentary model must be resisted – its a fools paradise and in the long run will not work Yes there is merit in adopting and establishing local multi-member proportional representational electorates – but the hybrid mix of different mandates in a single house Parliament has no merit or justification. If Ukraine believes they need National representatives to complement local representatives then they are best to adopt a bicameral system with one house elected on the basis of local representation (preferable the lower house) and the second house (Senate) elected on a national basis. The main criteria in assessing any representative model is that each elected position MUST be equal in representation and must be based on sound democratic principles. Each local electorate MUST return the same number of representatives elected on the same quota percentage and where possible have the same number of constituents (+/- 5%). Ideally each local electorate w

	13.09.09 \| .. Each local electorate MUST return the same number of representatives elected on the same quota percentage and where possible have the same number of constituents (+/- 5%). Ideally each local electorate would return either 5, 7 or 9 members of parliament and be elected by a system of “Single Transferable vote” preferential proportional representation using the Meeks method of counting the vote. What ever number they settle on each electorate MUST be the equal and on the based on the same quota percentage for the system to work at its best. (See previous post - Principles of a good, workable and democratic representative Parliamentary model) The proposal of creating a “Foreign representational” electorate is another foolish reaction to a problem that does not exist. The number of Ukrainian foreign voters is marginally small. If need be foreign voters should be able to cast a vote for the local regional electorate in which they were previously registered or lived, there is no need to create a special electorate to accommodate their needs.

	13.09.09 \| Need to fix the date for elections The other change that must be made and has been overlooked is the need to fix a set date for elections. This provision of having elections set for the last Sunday of the last month of the term of office of the Parliament, as we have seen with the current presidential elections, is not effective or desirable. A fixed date say last week in October would be a better option. Any preterm election could have their term cut short to ensure that the October date is the cut off point. Presidential elections if they are to continue should also be brought into line with the adoption of a similar fixed date. Hopefully the legislation as proposed will not see the light of day and Ukraine will stop trying to over-engineer the outcome of elections and concentrate more on winning public support based on a fair and equal electoral model. UkrToday

	19.09.09 \| Single round ballot At a direct cost of over 1.5 billion hryvina’s plus an additional 1.5 billion in candidates’ campaign costs its a shame that Ukraine did not support a parliamentary appointment or adopt a preferential voting system. A preferential voting system would have enabled Ukraine to hold a single round ballot. Voters express in order or preference their choice and support for each candidate. If no candidate has 50% or more votes then the candidate(s) with the lowest number of votes are excluded and their votes redistributed according to the voters nominated preference. The process cvontinues until one canidate has 50% or more votes. One round same result. Results known in days not months. more stability. Minor candiates such as Yushchenko can play a positive role in the outcome of the election by advocating a second preference allocation. A preferential voting system makes it easier to identify possible electoral fraud. One round at half the cost of the two round system. more efficient and more democratic. less costly.

	19.09.09 \| Paliamentary democarcy Principles of a good, workable and democratic representative Parliamentary model 1. Ukraine MUST become a full parliamentary democracy in line with other European states. 2. Ukraine would be best adopting a unicameral parliament with multi-member local electorates. 3. Each electorate should be equal (within +/- 5%) in the number of constituents. 4. The system of election should be “Singe Transferable Vote” – Preferential Proportional Representation. 5. The method of counting the vote should be by the Meek’s method. 6. Each electorate MUST have the same number of representatives elected. 7. It is essential that each electorate is equal in representation 8. Each electorate should elect either five (5), seven (7) or nine (9) members of parliament (Rada). 9. The quota for election would be 16.67%, 12.50% or 10.00% respectively. 10. The Head of State should be appointed by a constitutional majority of 60% of the parliament as is the case in Moldova and Greece. (The EU parliament elects its President, the US does not directly elect its head of state nor does germany and a host of other western nations) “Where there is no counsel the people fall but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety” The Prime-minister and government ministers to be elected from the Parliamentary governing coalition along the lines of the British Westminster system or other European Parliaments The role of Ukraine’s head of state should be a unifying and supportive ceremonial role with limited administrative power. Analysis indicates that Ukraine would be better represented by the above model. The above model is by far more preferable and more democratic then the model proposed by Yushchenko. It takes the best of all systems. Ukraine would the leader in democratic representation. Power must be held in the hands of the peoples elected representative parliament.

new comment To post any message or commentary, you need to login


	23.09.07 \| UkrToday I would like to suggets you start a discussion topic on electoral reform. I poersonal would liek to advocate Ukraine adopting a system of "Preferential proportional representation voting" as opposed to the nataional part list system. The creatuion of 39 local electorates each elctorate returning nine members elected on a 10% quota to Parliament (Total 351 members of Parliament). Accountability whilst retaining proportional representation. http://ukrainetoday.blogspot.com/search/label/Electoral%20Reform

	23.09.07 \| UkrToday Friday, September 21, 2007 Ukraine’s Indecisive, Divisive, Illegal and Unconstitutional Election A recipe for disaster In one weeks time Ukraine will go to the polls. Public opinion polls are showing that Ukraine remains bitterly divided as it was back in 2004. Next weeks election will only further divide Ukraine and add to the loss of confidence in the political process The results of the election are unknown but what is known is that only the victor will support the outcome and who ever is the loser will reject it. If Yulia Tymoshenko loses the election she will once again claim that the results of the ballot was fraudulent. If she wins her opposition will claim likewise. Earlier in the week the Government had cause to seriously question the conduct of the election, the role played by Ukraine’s President and the ongoing question and doubt of the legality of the president’s actions. The ngovernment has made allegations levelled at the president’s secretariat of not respecting the oath of office and becoming embroiled in the political campaign. Imagine a situation where the Queen of England, or any other head of state, dismisses the parliament and then actively advocates support for thier chosen party. In reality the situation is likely to get worst before it gets better. It is more then likely that Ukraine’s next government will not be formed following the election irrespective of who wins next weeks ballot. What ever the final results of the election are, the outcome, will have a negative impact and Ukraine may very well face a even worst period of dissent and disputation then it has experienced in past elections. Had the situation in Ukraine occurred in a western democracy the actions of the head of state would have been ruled unconstitutional in that the Constitution does not provide the authority for the president to dismiss the parliament under the current circumstances. The main cause of dissension and loss of confidence is to be found in the basis of the election and the president’s unconstitutional decrees dismissing Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament. Unlike in other circumstances where there are grounds for early elections there is no political division or loss of confidence that has prevented the formation and functioning of government. The government in Ukraine maintains the support of a majority of the elected representatives as was demonstrated by the fact that 260 out of 450 members parliament attended the recent parliamentary session. The only cause of disputation is an ongoing power struggle between the office of the president and the parliament. The situation has been made worst by the president’s illegal interference in the operation of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court which has prevented the Court from ruling on the legality of the president’s actions. The president’s decrees and actions are in direct breach of Article 5 of Ukraine’s Constitution in that th

	23.09.07 \| UkrToday Tuesday, September 04, 2007 Ukraine’s Parliament convenes Autumn Session amidst Constitutional Crisis Ukraine’s Parliament today (September 4) convened its Autumn session according to the requirements in Ukraine’s constitution (Article 83). The session was attended by 269 members of parliament. The Autumn Session of Parliament was held under controversy in the midst of a constitutional crisis and power struggle between the President and Ukraine’s democratically elected parliament An agreement was struck in late May between the The President, the Prime Minster and the Speaker of the Parliament that early parliamentary election could be held subject to the determination of the president complying with Ukraine’s’ Constitution. Under Ukraine’s Constitution (Article 90)The President of Ukraine may terminate the authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine prior to the expiration of term, if: .., (s3) the Parliament fails, within thirty days of a single regular session, to commence its plenary meetings. In July members of the opposition resigned their parliamentary positions and canceled their respective party lists reducing the member of elected representatives in the parliament to below two-thirds of the total 450 parliamentary seats. According to Ukraine’s constitution (Article 82) The Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine is competent on the condition that no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition has been elected. Following the resignation of opposition members it is argued that the parliament is no longer competent and as such the holding of the plenary session on September 4 could not be convened. The president’s earlier decrees seeking to dismiss the parliament has been subject to an appeal in Ukraine’s Constitutional Court including the current decree scheduling election for September 30 The basis of the appeals to the constitutional court is that the president has usurped power in that his decrees do not conform to the requirements of Article 90 of the constitution. The session of parliament held to day holds two points of interest in terms of provisions of constitutional law which is open to augment and interpretation which can only be determined by the Ukraine’s Constitution Court which has been muted since the president interference in the operation and composition of the court. First Question: Can the Parliament convene its parliamentary session given that it does not maintain the requisite number of elected representatives? The parliament could be skating on thin ice and the court could very well rule the session invalid accordingly. Second Question: Does the president have the authority to dismiss the Parliament. If the September 4 session is considered invalid then the president under Article 90 can within 30 days from today (October 5) terminate the authority of the parliament but not before. Prior to today the president had no grounds or authority in which he can di

	23.09.07 \| UkrToday Second Question: Does the president have the authority to dismiss the Parliament. If the September 4 session is considered invalid then the president under Article 90 can within 30 days from today (October 5) terminate the authority of the parliament but not before. Prior to today the president had no grounds or authority in which he can dismiss the parliament. The government maintains the support and confidence of a majority of elected parliamentary representatives, there is no division and there is no vote of no-confidence which would normal be a pre-condition for a parliaments dismissal. For the sake of 30 days the president has placed the legality of the September 30 election and undermined confidence in Ukraine’s constitutional rule of law having himself breached the provisions of the constitution.

	23.09.07 \| UkrToday Ukraine’s Constitutional Court The current division questions of legality hinges on the the ability and willingness of Ukraine Constitutional Court to fulfill its duty which following the president’s intervene in the operation of the court has failed to rule on the appeals before it. Back in April this year the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution in which it stated " The Assembly deplores the fact that the judicial system of Ukraine has been systematically misused by other branches of power and that top officials do not execute the courts’ decisions, which is a sign of erosion of this crucial democratic institution. An independent and impartial judiciary is a precondition for the existence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Hence the urgent necessity to carry out comprehensive judicial reform, including through amendments to the constitution. and has not allocated the required funding for these elections”. The Assembly reiterates that the authority of the sole body responsible for constitutional justice – the Constitutional Court of Ukraine – should be guaranteed and respected. Any form of pressure on the judges is intolerable and should be investigated and criminally prosecuted. On the other hand, it is regrettable that in the eight months of its new full composition, the Constitutional Court has failed to produce judgments, thus failing to fulfil its constitutional role and to contribute to resolving the crisis in its earlier stages, which undermines the credibility of the court. There is an urgent need for all pending judgments, and in particular the judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Presidential Decree of 2 April 2007, to be delivered. If delivered, the latter should be accepted as binding by all sides." The associated explanatory report under the sub-heading of Pressure on the courts expressed concern that "Several local courts have made decisions to suspend the Presidential Decree only to then withdraw them, allegedly under pressure from the presidential secretariat." (item 67) ” In emphasis the report (item 68) stated "This is a worrying tendency of legal nihilism that should not be tolerated. It is as clear as day that in a state governed by the rule of law judicial mistakes should be corrected through appeal procedures and not through threats or disciplinary sanctions"

	20.08.08 \| ikalangita thanks for this web site, me also i support human rights fight and built my own website to promote this cause http://www.kabonfootprint-gov.com

	20.02.09 \| ombudsman There is no such word as Ombudsperson. We do not call your organization Kharkiv Humperson rights group. I think you have some political correctness over zealous contributors or translators who write reports. they do not serve you well. The origin of the word is found in Old Swedish umbuðsmann (accusative) and the word umbuds man, meaning representative. The first preserved use is in Swedish. In the Danish Law of Jutland from 1241 the term is umbozman and means a royal civil servant in a hundred (country subdivision). From 1552, it is also used in the other Scandinavian languages such as the Icelandic "umboðsmaður", the Norwegian "ombudsmann" and the Danish "ombudsmand". The modern use of the term began in Sweden, with the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman instituted in 1809, to safeguard the rights of citizens by establishing a supervisory agency independent of the executive branch.

	13.09.09 \| UkrToday Back in June the Venice Commission reviewed a draft legislation on Parliamentary Elections proposed and submitted by the Ukrainian Parliament Committee on State Building and Local Self-Governance. The system proposed in the draft law provides for 450 parliamentarians to be elected under a form of proportional representation that uses territorial election districts, including a foreign territorial election district where ballots are cast by out of country voters. Under the proposed system, most members of parliament will be elected from national lists, with the mathematical possibility for individual political party candidates to be elected within an in-country territorial election district from a territorial list. The proposed model, as commented in the Venice Commission’s report, is very convoluted, complex and over engineered. It seeks to reinstate a “hybrid representative model” which is extraordinary and unnecessarily complex in its implementation. Under the proposals put forward Ukraine’s parliament would be made up of a representatives elected from a single party list but with the allocation of a proportion of the list being determined by local regional elections (the exact boundaries and composition not yet decided) . The system is so complex I do not think it is worth trying to unravel and explain in detail. It is a good example as how Ukrainian politicians try to manipulate the system to deliver a solution that is not a solution. Hybrid systems do not work. They create a distortion and inequality of the representative model which in turn distorts the balance of representation by creating super-sets and sub-sets of mandates. Those elected on a National List will hold a separate and significantly different mandate then those elected by the regional local list. This system did not work in the old parliament prior to the reforms of 2004. The proposed system, as complicated as it is, will also fail. The temptation to try and manipulate and over engineer Ukraine’s parliamentary model must be resisted – its a fools paradise and in the long run will not work Yes there is merit in adopting and establishing local multi-member proportional representational electorates – but the hybrid mix of different mandates in a single house Parliament has no merit or justification. If Ukraine believes they need National representatives to complement local representatives then they are best to adopt a bicameral system with one house elected on the basis of local representation (preferable the lower house) and the second house (Senate) elected on a national basis. The main criteria in assessing any representative model is that each elected position MUST be equal in representation and must be based on sound democratic principles. Each local electorate MUST return the same number of representatives elected on the same quota percentage and where possible have the same number of constituents (+/- 5%). Ideally each local electorate w

	13.09.09 \| .. Each local electorate MUST return the same number of representatives elected on the same quota percentage and where possible have the same number of constituents (+/- 5%). Ideally each local electorate would return either 5, 7 or 9 members of parliament and be elected by a system of “Single Transferable vote” preferential proportional representation using the Meeks method of counting the vote. What ever number they settle on each electorate MUST be the equal and on the based on the same quota percentage for the system to work at its best. (See previous post - Principles of a good, workable and democratic representative Parliamentary model) The proposal of creating a “Foreign representational” electorate is another foolish reaction to a problem that does not exist. The number of Ukrainian foreign voters is marginally small. If need be foreign voters should be able to cast a vote for the local regional electorate in which they were previously registered or lived, there is no need to create a special electorate to accommodate their needs.

	13.09.09 \| Need to fix the date for elections The other change that must be made and has been overlooked is the need to fix a set date for elections. This provision of having elections set for the last Sunday of the last month of the term of office of the Parliament, as we have seen with the current presidential elections, is not effective or desirable. A fixed date say last week in October would be a better option. Any preterm election could have their term cut short to ensure that the October date is the cut off point. Presidential elections if they are to continue should also be brought into line with the adoption of a similar fixed date. Hopefully the legislation as proposed will not see the light of day and Ukraine will stop trying to over-engineer the outcome of elections and concentrate more on winning public support based on a fair and equal electoral model. UkrToday

	19.09.09 \| Single round ballot At a direct cost of over 1.5 billion hryvina’s plus an additional 1.5 billion in candidates’ campaign costs its a shame that Ukraine did not support a parliamentary appointment or adopt a preferential voting system. A preferential voting system would have enabled Ukraine to hold a single round ballot. Voters express in order or preference their choice and support for each candidate. If no candidate has 50% or more votes then the candidate(s) with the lowest number of votes are excluded and their votes redistributed according to the voters nominated preference. The process cvontinues until one canidate has 50% or more votes. One round same result. Results known in days not months. more stability. Minor candiates such as Yushchenko can play a positive role in the outcome of the election by advocating a second preference allocation. A preferential voting system makes it easier to identify possible electoral fraud. One round at half the cost of the two round system. more efficient and more democratic. less costly.

	19.09.09 \| Paliamentary democarcy Principles of a good, workable and democratic representative Parliamentary model 1. Ukraine MUST become a full parliamentary democracy in line with other European states. 2. Ukraine would be best adopting a unicameral parliament with multi-member local electorates. 3. Each electorate should be equal (within +/- 5%) in the number of constituents. 4. The system of election should be “Singe Transferable Vote” – Preferential Proportional Representation. 5. The method of counting the vote should be by the Meek’s method. 6. Each electorate MUST have the same number of representatives elected. 7. It is essential that each electorate is equal in representation 8. Each electorate should elect either five (5), seven (7) or nine (9) members of parliament (Rada). 9. The quota for election would be 16.67%, 12.50% or 10.00% respectively. 10. The Head of State should be appointed by a constitutional majority of 60% of the parliament as is the case in Moldova and Greece. (The EU parliament elects its President, the US does not directly elect its head of state nor does germany and a host of other western nations) “Where there is no counsel the people fall but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety” The Prime-minister and government ministers to be elected from the Parliamentary governing coalition along the lines of the British Westminster system or other European Parliaments The role of Ukraine’s head of state should be a unifying and supportive ceremonial role with limited administrative power. Analysis indicates that Ukraine would be better represented by the above model. The above model is by far more preferable and more democratic then the model proposed by Yushchenko. It takes the best of all systems. Ukraine would the leader in democratic representation. Power must be held in the hands of the peoples elected representative parliament.

new comment To post any message or commentary, you need to login